Reading a copy of the interview with Prof. Michael Hudson, I am reminded of few things I learned in college:

A specialist is one that knows more and more about less and less.

An expert is an X as we all know in algebra stands for an unknown quantity and spirt is squirt under pressure.

Bachelor of Science degree is BS which everyone know what that commonly stands for.

Master of Science degree is MS which is More of the Same.

Doctor of Philosophy is PhD which is Piled Highter and Deeper.

Now that I got that much off my chest, I have to say that much of the discussion among professionals about our economic problems seem to me like flighty birds twittering and babbling about and among the twigs and leaves of the problem instead digging into the very root or roots of the economic problem.

I am not a professional economist, thankfully.

I am a retired professional agriculturalist, unthankfully, as I am well aware from the very beginning of the coming poisonous deadend of industrial corporate agricullture as being led by our professional agri;culturists. That awareness probably was reinforced by my being born and growing up during the depression on midwestern farms.

I have known and fully recognized where I think our basic financial problem lay for many decades, but could see no way to correct it or even anybody else even recognizing there was a problem to solve during that time. Why I would happen to begin wondering again about the problem about two weeks before the OWS broke out is beyond me since I had no inkling OWS was afoot.

Amazingly, at that time, in reading my emails I get from various mailing lists to keep abreast of events and ideas, I read an article written by Dick Eastman about Social Credit which sounded like the very answer I was looking for. In researching the internet, I was thrilled to find lots of information that fulfilled my hopes. However, IMO, most writers seemed to me to make Social Credit more complicated then necessary. No wonder it hasn’t been accepted and put into practise anywhere yet or supported by the majority exposed to the idea.

What is the problem that I have been aware for so long? That is the Federal Reserve Bank and fractional reserve banking system. Money has to be intoduced into circulation somehow. If spent into circulation, the first spender gets the face value of the money without having earned its value but the spender agrees with receiver of the money that the receiver has earned that value. Thereafter the receiver becomes the spender of the money he has earned, and next receiver agrees on the mutual exchange, and this can go on and on, forever and ever with the same money.

However, the banks as the only wrangled legalized creators of money as a monopoly are very tricky. The banks loan the money into circulation. The free handout to the banks is not obvious because the return is delayed while the money circulates its benefits. However the results are exactly the same as if the money had been spent into circulation. The banks get the face value of the money without having earned it. If only banks can issue money who are owned by one tenth of one percent of the people, that means that the 99.99% of people must borrow from them in order to carry on our interdependent life and survive.

Not only that, but the banks add interest on the face value of the loan which in reality has zero principle as bankers have no earned credit to loan since the principle was drawn from thin air. Furthermore, since the money originates as a loan, its circulation is limited and sucking in interest while circulating. This is the interest drain and usury that Dick Eastman talks about. As the face value of the money and interest is sucked back in, more money must be borrowed to pay the interest since the only money circulating was the face value just now sucked back in.

Now money sucked back in is not dead, for the banks use our money that we the 99.99%ers earned and had to pay back and the banks and their 0.1%ers did not earn and use it to buy out our constitution, our traitorous representatives, our traitorous judicial system, and anything else that strikes their fancy.

What can Social Credit do? Since money has to origin somewhere, and the originator gets to benefit from converting the money from unearned face value to earned face value as explained above, it is only fair that every citizen adult gets an equal share rather than just a select few, the 0.1%ers. That way, with such a broadly distributed exchange power, the booms and busts are not as likely to happen as they average out like proper insurance does, and every adult and his children have an equal opportunity to learn from the choices they make and also to observe the choices and results many others are getting.

So we may be pleasantly shocked seeing for the first time the human potential manifesting in general. Try it, we might like it. May the Golden Rule come alive. “Do unto others as they would like you to do unto them as you would like them to do unto you as you would like them to do unto you” or leave others alone if that is what others really want.

I have tried to make sense of our interdependent economic challenge and hope this might make some sense to you.